1280 WEATHER AND FORECASTING VOLUME 23 FORECASTERS’ FORUM Elevated Convection and Castellanus: Ambiguities, Significance, and Questions STEPHEN F. CORFIDI NOAA/NWS/NCEP/Storm Prediction Center, Norman, Oklahoma SARAH J. CORFIDI NOAA/NWS/NCEP/Storm Prediction Center, and Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma DAVID M. SCHULTZ* Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, and NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma (Manuscript received 23 January 2008, in final form 26 April 2008) ABSTRACT The term elevated convection is used to describe convection where the constituent air parcels originate from a layer above the planetary boundary layer. Because elevated convection can produce severe hail, damaging surface wind, and excessive rainfall in places well removed from strong surface-based instability, situations with elevated storms can be challenging for forecasters. Furthermore, determining the source of air parcels in a given convective cloud using a proximity sounding to ascertain whether the cloud is elevated or surface based would appear to be trivial. In practice, however, this is often not the case. Compounding the challenges in understanding elevated convection is that some meteorologists refer to a cloud formation known as castellanus synonymously as a form of elevated convection. Two different definitions of castel- lanus exist in the literature—one is morphologically based (cloud formations that develop turreted or cumuliform shapes on their upper surfaces) and the other is physically based (inferring the turrets result from the release of conditional instability). The terms elevated convection and castellanus are not synony- mous, because castellanus can arise from surface-based convection and elevated convection exists that does not feature castellanus cloud formations. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to clarify the definitions of elevated convection and castellanus, fostering a better understanding of the relevant physical processes. Specifically, the present paper advocates the physically based definition of castellanus and recommends eliminating the synonymity between the terms castellanus and elevated convection. 1. Introduction within the convection lies above the planetary bound- ary layer (PBL). Specifically, elevated convection oc- The term elevated convection denotes convective curs above any near-surface stable layer (e.g., nocturnal clouds, storms, or both where the origin of air parcels inversion) or a sloping frontal surface (such as a warm or stationary front) where the instability is above the surface. Although the term elevated convection has * Current affiliation: Division of Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysics, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, and been used more widely in recent years, the concept of Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland. convection (particularly, deep moist convection) not based in the PBL has been in existence for many de- cades (e.g., Berry et al. 1945, pp. 714 and 816). Deep Corresponding author address: Stephen F. Corfidi, Storm Pre- diction Center, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Ste. 2300, Norman, OK elevated convection, generally in the form of thunder- 73072. storms, can produce excessive rainfall, hail, and occa- E-mail: [email protected] sionally damaging surface winds and tornadoes in areas DOI: 10.1175/2008WAF2222118.1 WAF2222118 DECEMBER 2008 FORECASTERS’ FORUM 1281 well removed from strong surface-based instability storms whose most unstable parcel is located at the (e.g., Branick et al. 1988; Schmidt and Cotton 1989; surface. But the fact that two otherwise identical “sur- Colman 1990a,b; Neiman et al. 1993; Grant 1995; Ber- face based” storms might have different levels of most nardet and Cotton 1998; Moore et al. 1998, 2003; Ba- unstable inflow at the very least calls into question the nacos and Schultz 2005; Goss et al. 2006; Colby and widely accepted notion that a simple dichotomy exists Walker 2007; Horgan et al. 2007), as well as lightning- between surface-based and elevated storms. initiated wildfires in the western United States (Tardy Efforts to determine storm inflow layers are moti- 2007). vated by the fact that the depth and location of a con- Determining the source region of buoyant parcels vective cloud’s inflow can affect its subsequent evolu- with the aid of an appropriate proximity sounding is not tion and tendency to produce severe weather. For ex- necessarily trivial. Specifically, growing cumulus clouds ample, Horgan et al. (2007) showed that elevated and thunderstorms based in the boundary layer rou- convection tends to be associated with a reduced like- tinely ingest parcels from above the boundary layer lihood of producing significant severe winds and torna- (e.g., Stull 1988, 559–561; Emanuel 1994, 200–204; and does. Specifically, of all severe-storm reports associated references therein). A modeling study by Fovell (2005) with the 129 elevated severe-storm cases in Horgan et suggests that deep convective clouds that form in the al. (2007), 9% of all hail reports, 3% of all wind reports, vicinity of sea-breeze circulations are composed of air and 10% of all tornado reports were significant severe that initially originates above the PBL. On the other reports, as defined by Hales (1988). These numbers hand, air from near-surface stable layers can be incor- compare to the 9.8% of hail, 15.8% of wind, and 18.3% porated into the updrafts of developing storms as long of tornadoes that are significant reports from all storms as the resulting parcels become positively buoyant. In during 1970–2004 (G. Carbin 2007, personal communi- addition, rotating updrafts in supercell storms induce cation). nonhydrostatic vertical pressure gradients that tap non- When, or even if, a cloud or storm transitions from buoyant boundary layer parcels (e.g., Marwitz 1973; being surface based to elevated, or vice versa, is often a Browning and Foote 1976; Weisman and Rotunno difficult forecasting challenge. For example, opera- 2000). To define surface-based convection as convec- tional experience and indirect evidence via visual ob- tion in which the air involved is derived mainly from the servation suggest that thunderstorms associated with PBL begs the question, “what is mainly?” deeply mixed boundary layer environments over the Thompson et al. (2007) provide one approach to an- Rocky Mountains and adjacent high plains of the swering this question by considering the effective inflow United States frequently become elevated as they move layer of a storm. Using proximity soundings to delimit east across the lower plains. Even without strong con- the vertical range of parcels meeting selected convec- vective inhibition, the cooler, but more moist, air from tive instability and inhibition criteria, the authors iden- the PBL over the lower terrain does not appear to be tify the layer that likely serves as the primary source for ingested into such storms, thereby reducing the likeli- a storm’s updrafts. This layer is then used to compute hood for tornadoes (e.g., Horgan et al. 2007). On the improved estimates of the magnitude of the environ- other hand, initially elevated storms sometimes clearly mental shear and storm-relative helicity (Davies-Jones do become surface based upon encountering regions et al. 1990) associated with an elevated storm. Critical with moister boundary layers. Drawing upon this discussion of the Thompson et al. technique for identi- moister air, the circulations of such storms appear to fying effective inflow layers is beyond the scope of this develop downward, often displaying a concomitant in- paper. Their scheme is, nevertheless, a first attempt to crease in strength and severity (e.g., Rockwood and better quantify the level of potential severity posed by Maddox 1988, 63–65). elevated storms. Further, Thompson et al. correctly Compounding the challenges in understanding el- note (p. 108) that the most buoyant parcel in a storm’s evated convection is that some meteorologists refer to a inflow layer often exists well above the surface, even type of cloud formation known as castellanus synony- with storms whose inflow layers include the surface mously as a form of elevated convection. Castellanus (e.g., their Fig. 6). Storms of this nature occur fre- (meaning “castle shaped”), in its most common usage, quently in the moist, marginally unstable environments is a patchy or streaky cloud formation with turrets (Fig. common to severe weather events over the southern 1), although castellanus can also be used to describe the and eastern United States. It is not clear if or how entire cloud containing such turrets or even a whole storms with elevated, most unstable parcels might differ field of such clouds. These cloud formations typically morphologically and behaviorally from surface-based represent comparatively benign convection with rela- 1282 WEATHER AND FORECASTING VOLUME 23 FIG. 1. Castellanus (arranged in lines arising from a common base, lower left) and floccus (tufted, cumuliform puffs with ragged bases, top center through lower right) near Valentine, NE, about 1400 central daylight time (CDT; CDT ϭ UTC Ϫ 5 h) 28 May 1988, looking south. tively weak updrafts and limited vertical extent. The questions requiring answers from the research and fore- structure and evolution of castellanus provide insight casting communities. into the relevant physical processes responsible for such cloud forms,